Bringing Two Sides Together

I’ve been wondering if you already know how to bring two sides together. I doubt I can help you by listing the proven methods that help with that. I know I learned how to reconcile opposing factions from my experiences that worked and those that backfired on me. I don’t know what you have learned from your own experiences about arguing and resolving differences. All I can really do is show you how it’s done by what follows:

Show up with more questions than answers, accusations and arguments

1. Have you noticed that it’s easier to learn from people who walk the talk and provide you with exemplary conduct than from people to only tell you how to act?
2. Have you ever felt yourself becoming more interested because the speaker seemed more interested in you than in trying to be an interesting person?
3. Have you experienced the tension fading from an argument when the other side starts learning about your side of the issue, your underlying concerns and your circumstances affected by the argument?
4. Have you ever developed a casual acquaintance into a significant friendship by asking a lot of questions, by learning more about the person and remaining curious to discover their latest experiences?
5. Have you influenced people to respect and trust you by obviously respecting and trusting them with the questions you ask them?
6. Have you delved deeper into understanding others by asking follow-up questions? How did you do that? When did this work for you? What different approaches have you discovered to get the results you were seeking? 
7. Have you noticed how much more relaxed you become when you prepare questions to ask an adversary than when you prepare opposing arguments and ammunition to shoot down their objections? 

Change the atmosphere before changing the conversation

1. You might be afraid you’re weakening your own bargaining position by acknowledging your opponent’s concerns, constituencies and circumstances.
2. You might be opposed to speaking your opponent’s mind about how they see you, how they may be interpreting your conduct and how they are preparing to defend themselves from your pressure tactics.
3. You might wish your adversaries would lower their defenses first while they appear to be waiting for you to act somewhat vulnerable, accessible and flexible. 
4. You might expect your opponents to open their minds because it is absolutely necessary to reach an agreement rather than because you took the initiative to approach them with an open mind first.

See through their tactics before they affect you

1. Can you detect through his/her body language when someone is lying, exaggerating, bluffing or baiting you?
2. Can you perceive their underlying weaknesses, insecurities and self-incriminations when they are trying to bully, intimidate or antagonize you?
3. Can you see how desperate your adversaries are becoming when they resort to put downs, cheap shots and snide remarks?
4. Can you remain disengaged when they try to provoke you to overreact, make a fool of yourself or lose your cool?

Look past opposing positions to their secondary interests

1. When people are totally opposed to what I want, I have got to wonder what else they have going on in their world besides blocking my primary objective?
2. When I get curious about their secondary objectives, I usually learn they have an audience waiting to hear how their side ended up and others who will help clean up the mess or take the next step — depending on how the reconciliation turns out for them.
3. When I get a picture of who else has a vested interest in the outcome, I begin to wonder how I can help them out, make their lives easier or validate their concerns?
4. When I discover ways to meet my opponents’ secondary objectives, my interest in them becomes a secondary objective of mine which can lead to reconciliation of the initial opposing positions.

I don’t know if you got this? I may have lost you if you were expecting a straightforward explanation. I cannot tell if you got a sense of confidence from this that you could do this too or became more hopeless about ever getting past some big disagreement, stalemate or standoff? I wonder if you could already bring two sides together in practice, but now realize how to do a better job of preparing or conducting yourself? 

Drain the Swamp

Ecosystems routinely convert marshes into fertile meadows. This occurs by decaying the accumulating aquatic plants and trees, aided by bacteria-rich brackish water. Windblown top soil helps with replacing the decaying stench with luxurious soil, wildflowers and softwood forests. Ecosystems do not drain swamps or build water treatment plants. Changes occur by natural processes. 

Pondering how wetlands become meadows has me thinking how the quagmire of politics in Washington could occur naturally. How could President Trump keep his promise of “draining the swamp” without taking action to get that done. What if Donald J. could function as an anti-hero who’s finale was anti-climatic? What if the key to “draining the swamp” was failed negotiations? What if he followed the lead of the “do-nothing” Congress and did nothing to drain the swamp? What if he rendered conventional “make it happen” presidential leadership irrelevant? What if we’ve elected the right guy for the job of morphing gridlocked Washington into a new political landscape teeming with vibrancy and diversity?

Congressional consensus building and policy formation have ground to a halt. The sides mistrust each other so much that they cannot compromise or find some middle ground. Their objectives appear to be diametrically opposed. Nothing the Executive Branch does has broken the deadlock. The RNC and DNC have not changed the kinds of candidates running for seats in Congress. All this compares to the brackish water in the swamp analogy.

The aquatic plants going to rot in a marsh are the contentious issues remaining unresolved in both houses of Congress: national debt, entitlement programs, immigration reform, healthcare policy, tax reforms, etc. The aquatic plants are rooted in muck that equates with the kinds of thinking in use which perpetuate the unresolvable contentiousness. In this analogy, those plants won’t start growing again, they will disintegrate in support of a new landscape. 

The fertile ground of the resulting meadow equates with a newer style of leadership that goes by many names: facilitative, consultative, participative, democratic or servant leadership. Subordinates are no longer under the leader’s authority or obligated to report up the command chain. These leaders have everyone’s back. They lead from behind and support other’s initiatives. They listen to and learn from everyone’s concerns. They facilitate solutions that span across different teams, departments or levels. These leaders take a coach approach to getting others to produce results, to enhance their capabilities and to collaborate with others. 

The burgeoning wildflowers and fast growing trees resemble the flourishing of initiative, better judgment, individual talents, collaborative creativity, unique contributions and shared commitments. Everyone is setup to succeed, made to feel like owners and treasured for their unique contributions. Imagine both houses of Congress blossoming like this.

This delightful transformation often occurs following the widespread failures of autocratic leadership and adversarial negotiations. The resulting lack of initiative and the absence of everyone’s better judgment helps to bring about the demise of the old order. It’s much like a brackish swamp caving in on itself and disintegrating under its own weight. 

The pending failures of Congressional and Presidential leadership are easy to anticipate. So much of the political landscape also fits a model of adversarial negotiations. All the stagnation then fits into the frame of failed negotiations. (I’ll explore this in several future posts) The fallout from both failures is a perfect end to the swamp and the start of the fertile meadow.